Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “as large as large” is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 14 requires a flow rate of the medium that enters the container under the fifth pressure level to be at least twice as large as a flow rate that reaches the bottom area under the fourth pressure level. Applicant points to page 6, lines 9-12 for support. However, that portion of the specification, which includes the first portion of paragraph 26, describes a different relationship. Flow entering the container at P2 is at least twice the flow reaching the bottom at P3. This associates the container entry flow with the fourth pressure and the bottom-reaching flow with the fifth pressure. Claim 14 exchanges those pressure assignments. There is no support in the application as filed for a flow rate of the medium that enters the container under the fifth pressure level to be at least twice as large as a flow rate that reaches the bottom area under the fourth pressure level.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirdina (US 2008/0164642) in view of Brunner (US 2011/0057343).
Claim 8: Hirdina discloses an apparatus for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers with a transport device which transports the plastic preforms along a predetermined transport path (¶¶ 2, 27, 31; fig. 1), wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier on which a plurality of forming stations for forming the plastic preforms into the plastic containers is arranged (fig. 1; ¶¶ 20-21, 27, 31), wherein the forming stations each have a stretching rod 6 with which the plastic preforms are stretched in their longitudinal direction (¶¶ 19, 36) and have application devices which apply the plastic preforms with the flowable medium (¶¶ 34, 36; nozzle 60, valve block 50), and a bottom application device configured for applying the bottoms of the plastic preforms and/or plastic containers with the flowable medium during the expansion process (¶¶ 11-12, 24, 34, 36; hollow rod 6 directs cooling air toward the bottom while completing contour expansion); and a further pressure reservoir which is configured for applying the bottom areas of the plastic preforms or containers with a further pressure level, wherein this further pressure level is higher than the previous pressure level (¶¶ 32, 34, 36; cooling reservoir 33 at approximately 40 bar, above final blowing reservoir 31 at approximately 30 bar). Hirdina supplies preblowing, final blowing, and cooling air from reservoirs 32, 31 and 33 (¶¶ 32-33, 36), but is silent as to two additional intermediate reservoirs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Brunner discloses an apparatus for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers with a transport device which transports the plastic preforms along a predetermined transport path (abstract; figs. 1-2; ¶ 28), wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier (24’) on which a plurality of forming stations for forming the plastic preforms into the plastic containers is arranged (figs. 1-2), wherein the forming stations each have a stretching rod with which the plastic preforms are stretched in their longitudinal direction and have application devices which apply the plastic preforms with the flowable medium (¶ 34), and wherein the apparatus has at least four pressure reservoirs which store the flowable medium and the plastic preforms can be applied with at least a first pressure level stored in the first pressure reservoir (¶¶ 33-34; figs. 1-2), a second pressure level stored in the second pressure reservoir(¶¶ 33-34; figs. 1-2), a third pressure level stored in the third pressure reservoir and a fourth pressure level stored in the fourth pressure reservoir (¶¶ 33-34; figs. 1-2), wherein the second pressure level is higher than the first pressure level and the third pressure level is higher than the second pressure level and the fourth pressure level is higher than the third pressure level (¶¶ 33-34; figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have added two separately regulated intermediate reservoirs and switching valve connections to Hirdina to perform more expansion at lower pressures before final shaping, as Brunner teaches to reduce blowing energy (¶ 15), while retaining Hirdina’s higher pressure bottom cooling and contour completion (¶¶ 11-12, 36).
Claim 10: Hirdina discloses compressed air can be fed from the containers into at least one reservoir (¶¶ 36, 42; valve 52 returns air from container 7 to reservoir 31); and Brunner discloses during recovery phase 32 air from the blow mold B or the container 40 is fed via the opening check valve 12’ into the volume 8 (¶ 36).
Claim 11: Brunner discloses rotary machine with 36+ blow molds sharing common ring channel volumes, and since each blow mold operates in a time-staggered manner on the rotating carousel, one staqion drawing from a reservoir while another station simultaneously returns air to the same reservoir at a different phase of the blow cycle, the supply and return periods are capable of not being synchronized with one another (¶¶ 28-38).
Claim 12: Brunner discloses for any given ring channel volume (volume 8 for preblow) one station is capable of drawing preblow air while another station is in the recovery phase feeding air back into the same volume, these operations are determined by the position of each station on the carousel and would not be synchronized (¶¶ 30-38).
Claim 13: Brunner discloses the intermediate blow stage 9 (second reservoir) and the higher blow stage volume 10 (third reservoir) both participate in the cascade recovery (¶ 29).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirdina (US 2008/0164642) in view of Brunner (US 2011/0057343), as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Rymann (EP 3530431).
Hirdina is silent as to the claimed time interval. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rymann teaches successive main blowing phases with a 40-200 ms first phase (¶30, 32; fig. 1b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected a foruth-pressure duration within the 40 to less than 100 ms portion of that range and inititiate Hirdina’s fifth-pressure bottom application at its conclusion. Hirdina expressly teaches shortening final blowing by completing the contours during the subsequent higher pressure cooling phase (¶¶ 12, 36). This applies known staged blowing timing to that shortened phase while retaining the subsequent operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights